LA-AT vs AT-AT

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-11-02 10:49pm

If you put them both on a field, which would win, because the LA-AT has rockets on it and great mobility compared to the AT-AT. Though the AT-AT has big blasters and armour, though seemingly only one firing arc.

Anyone?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-02 10:54pm

The LAAT (no hyphon) would probably win. It is designed as a close support vehicle that can provide support against armor, as seen at Geonosis.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-02 10:58pm

LAAT circles around and fires a salvo of 100-kiloton missiles into the back of the AT-AT. AT-AT explodes.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-11-02 11:19pm

So are rockets superior to blasters?

Wow.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-02 11:25pm

That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-11-02 11:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:LAAT circles around and fires a salvo of 100-kiloton missiles into the back of the AT-AT. AT-AT explodes.

Wow.

What exactly is that going to do to the surrounding troops and terrain?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-11-03 12:35am

Howedar wrote:That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.

Sorry, but it's not like I have an ICS nearby.

Though it doesn't explain why every Imp thing seems to have blasters.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 12:59am

Gandalf wrote:
Howedar wrote:That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.
Sorry, but it's not like I have an ICS nearby.

Though it doesn't explain why every Imp thing seems to have blasters.

A) Not everything Imperial is blasters only. We have some instances of artillery and guided missles if I recall right.

B) Blasters pack a lot of power into a relatively small volume and can be used repeathedly as opposed to a one shot rocket.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-11-03 06:15am

Ok, sorry about that, I've read bugger all of the EU. I can remember the missiles though.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2003-11-03 09:58am

What thing does the Imperials have that fills the nice of the LAAT and can outperform it?

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-11-03 10:05am

Assault Transports maybe?

Although I'm not sure they were designed for atmospherical flight.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2003-11-03 10:06am

Boba Fett wrote:Assault Transports maybe?

Although I'm not sure they were designed for atmospherical flight.

Ummm... I was talking about LA ATs, those walker things you saw on Clone Wars.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-11-03 10:09am

Ooops sorry about that.

So what does the imperials have for the same role as the LAAT?

Same answer as before...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-11-03 10:09am

Uh...the walker things in AOTC were AT-TE's

The LAAT's were the aircraft they used to move Clonetroopers around and what Anakin and Obi-Wan were on chasing Dooku.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-03 10:32am

It really depends on what kind of missiles the LAAT happens to be carrying. If it was loaded up to take on an AT-AT, I would expect that its mobility would give it the advantage. If it was carrying smaller missiles, it might be more difficult.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2003-11-03 10:47am

Ghost Rider wrote:Uh...the walker things in AOTC were AT-TE's

The LAAT's were the aircraft they used to move Clonetroopers around and what Anakin and Obi-Wan were on chasing Dooku.

Really? SHIT! *smashes head through monitor*

Well, the "AT" makes it confusing.

LAATs are more than enough to waste a AT AT, if they were designated to destroy ATs.

Now that I've mentioned AT TEs... who'd win? AT ATs or AT TEs?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-11-03 01:31pm

An AT-AT has greater firepower and a higher vantage point than the AT-TE.

AT-AT would win easily.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 01:38pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:An AT-AT has greater firepower and a higher vantage point than the AT-TE.

AT-AT would win easily.

But they're also larger, less manuverable and have a fairly limited firing arc. If it can hit the AT-AT in the flank it's all over.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-11-03 01:58pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:An AT-AT has greater firepower and a higher vantage point than the AT-TE.

AT-AT would win easily.
But they're also larger, less manuverable and have a fairly limited firing arc. If it can hit the AT-AT in the flank it's all over.

Unless the AT-AT hits it from a distance, like it was built to do.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-11-03 02:05pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Uh...the walker things in AOTC were AT-TE's

The LAAT's were the aircraft they used to move Clonetroopers around and what Anakin and Obi-Wan were on chasing Dooku.
Really? SHIT! *smashes head through monitor*

Well, the "AT" makes it confusing.

LAATs are more than enough to waste a AT AT, if they were designated to destroy ATs.

Now that I've mentioned AT TEs... who'd win? AT ATs or AT TEs?

AT-ATs otherwise the empire would still use the Tactical Enforcers

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2003-11-03 02:25pm

The AT-AT has longer range, heavier weapons, more armor and carries more troops than the AT-TE. The AT-TE could win, though, depending on the circumstances. But in general, the AT-AT is superior.

The imperial equivalent of the LAATs (which comes in two different versions) are two in my eyes: the Sentinel landing craft and the assault gunboat. The former carries troops and vehicles in the same manner as the LAAT/i together with plenty of firepower; the second is a pure combat craft, suitable for ground support.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-03 02:30pm

LadyTevar wrote:Unless the AT-AT hits it from a distance, like it was built to do.

Certainly if the AT-AT can hit it, the AT-TE will die. But it's highly limited firing arc will mean it has to phsycially points it's entire body at the AT-TE. If the AT-TE can stay out of it's firing arc it'll be okay.

Crazedwraith wrote:AT-ATs otherwise the empire would still use the Tactical Enforcers

How do we know they don't? The assualt at Hoth was a fairly limited battle and by no means shows off the full range of Imperial armor. Curtis Saxton has a page that lists a whole range of unidentified partial walkers some of which might be the AT-TE.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-11-03 02:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:AT-ATs otherwise the empire would still use the Tactical Enforcers
How do we know they don't? The assualt at Hoth was a fairly limited battle and by no means shows off the full range of Imperial armor. Curtis Saxton has a page that lists a whole range of unidentified partial walkers some of which might be the AT-TE.

Conceeded. The TE seem to be more of a main battle tank compared to the AT-AT's APC

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-03 04:41pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:An AT-AT has greater firepower and a higher vantage point than the AT-TE.

AT-AT would win easily.

Actually it has nothing to match the AT-TE's missile launcher which fires projectiles that look very much like proton torpedos.

AT-ATs otherwise the empire would still use the Tactical Enforcers

Or more likely they switched to AT-AT's because the threat was primarily light infantry and the new walker could afford to be a huge towering target because they had almost nothing that could hurt it. The return for this being a larger carrying capacity and long-range blaster fire. The AT-TE meanwhile was designed for a different war against a heavily armored and well equipped force in the form of the separatists, so it was built to be low slung but armed with a heavy anti armor missile weapon along with its blasters.

Different threats demand different solutions.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-11-03 04:56pm

Howedar wrote:That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.

Actually they could be substantially more powerful than that... at least at maximum firepower (anywhere from 16-130 kt per bolt... but this is again Max firepower, so we don't know the exact recharge rate either.)